pamphlet on the principles of government Erskine was instructed to defend the Dean at the Shropshire Assizes in the summer of 1784. Now it so happened that at that time the Judges had a wrong notion of the law of libel. They held that the question of libel or no libel was for the Judge and not for the jury; and the only question for the jury was whether the pamphlet was published. This state of the law made it difficult for Erskine to defend the Dean But he was so successful with, the jury that, despite the Judge’s direction, they did not give a simple verdict of guilty. The foreman said: "We find him guilty of publishing only.“ The judge was not prepared to accept that verdict and said to the jury: "You must explain that, one way or the other." But Erskine then took the bold and unusual course of himself asking the jury: "Is the word ‘only’ to stand as part of the verdict?" The foreman said: "Certainly". Erskine: "I insist that the verdict shall be recorded." Buller, J: "Then the verdict must be misunderstood: let me understand the jury." Erskine: "The jury do understand their verdict." Buller, J. ‘Sir, I will not be interrupted." Erskine: "Istand here as an advocate for a brother citizen, and I desire that the word ‘only’ mdy be recorded." Buller J: "Sit down, Sir. Remember your duty, or I shall be obliged to proceed in another manner" (which was a broad hint that he would be obliged to commit him for contempt, but Erskine replied). Erskine: "Your Lordship may proceed in what manner lie thinks fit: I know my duty as well as your Lordship knows yours. I shall not alter my conduct." The Judge gave in. He did not commit Erskine and eventually the verdict was entered in the form: "Guilty of publishing, but whether a libel or not we do not find." Afterwards, on a hearing before Lord Mansfield in London, the pamphlet was held to be no libel and the Dean was acquitted. There was such an outcry about the state of the law as the Judges supposed it to be, that Parliament in 1792, in Fox’s Libel Act, declared that the Judges were wrong, and that the question of libel or no libel was for the jury and not for the Judge. Parliament said that the law had always been so, despite what the Judges had said about it. This was one of the great steps in establishing the freedom of the press in England, and it was largely due to the conduct of Erskine in the case of the Dean of St. Asaph.